Analysis Paper on Environment Policy in Indonesia

Analysis Paper on Environment Policy in Indonesia By Diah Y. Suradiredja – Enviroment Consultant I. Global and National Policy Issues. Climate change became the world’s central issues and concerns of all stakeholders in local, regional, national, and international levels. Global warming and climate change takes place because of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effects produced by development activities of various business sectors, such as land use, land conversion, forest arson, forest degradation due to uncontrolled exploitation, and combustion of fossil energy. Indonesia has a commitment to reducing the GHG in 2010 down to 26 percent of Business as Usual (BAU) with its own expense and 41 percent of the BAU with international support. Forestry subsector - which is included in the international organization's Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forest (LULUCF) - will contribute in slowing down the carbon emission by 14 percent. Thus, the advanced countries should provide support to countries which have huge forests to be managed in a sustainable way. The call is getting more persistent as one of the forest functions is to absorb and store carbon, so as to reduce carbon emissions. In this regard, Indonesia proposed schemes to contribute to the reduction in GHG emissions through REDD/REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation Plus). REDD includes activities of GHG emission reduction of (1) deforestation in forest conversion and (2) forest degradation through Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices, while the meaning of "plus" here is additional efforts to reduce emissions, especially in (3) conservation areas, (4) reforestation and ecosystem restoration. In addition, Indonesia also can implement the clean development mechanism (CDM) through afforestation/reforestation (A/R CDM) and voluntary carbon markets (VCM) which represents as scheme carbon absorption and storage (RAP/PAN). A. A conflicting regulations in the climate change policy, During its development, REDD schemes mentioned above is turn very slow and even come to a halt either because of internal and external factors. The internal factors includes (1) the perception and understanding of stakeholders (especially the management unit) about the A/R CDM, (2) technical issues related to the establishment of land eligibility, baseline, and additionally, (3) limited access to information, and (4) carbon ownership and distribution of profits. The external factors include, among others: (1) the overlapping laws and their regulation derivatives, (2) the certainty of work area in Spatial Planning, (3) procedures for obtaining government approvals, (4) land tenure and social issues, (4) funding constraints, and (5) lack of a clear market demand. Legal bases relating to the implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia are as follows: 1) Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, Article 4, paragraph (1); 2) Law Number 5 of 1990 on Conservation of Natural Resources, Biospheres, and Ecosystems; 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) Law Number 6 of 1994 on the Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry; Law Number 17 of 2003 on State Finance; Law Number 17 of 2004 on Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol over the Framework Convention of the United Nations on Climate Change; Law Number 25 of 2004 on National Development Planning System; Law Number 18 of 2004 on Plantation; Law Number 32 of 2004 on Regional Autonomy; Law Number 17 of 2005 on the Long Term Development Plan (RPJP) 2005 -2025; Law Number 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning; Law Number 31 of 2009 on Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics; Law Number 32 of 2009 on the Protection and Management of the Environment; Law Number 41 of 2009 on the Protection of Land Sustainable Food; Government Regulation Number 25 of 2000 on Government Authority and Provincial Authority as an Autonomous Region; Government Regulation Number 4 of 2001 on Control of Pollution Damage and or Environment Relating to forest fires; Government Regulation Number 44 of 2004 on Forestry Planning; Government Regulation Number 45 of 2004 on Forest Protection; Government Regulation Number 27 of 2007 on Environmental Impact Assessment; Government Regulation Number 6 of 2007 on Forest Management and Forest Management Planning, as well as forest utilization; Government Regulation Number 38 of 2007 on the coordination between Central Government, Provincial Government, and the Government of Regency/Municipality; Government Regulation Number 2 of 2008 on Types and Tariffs on non-tax state revenue Originating from Forest Area for Mining Interests outside Forestry prevailing in the Ministry of Forestry; Government Regulation Number 3 of 2008 on the Amendment of the Government Regulation Number 6 of 2007 on Forest Management and Forest Management Planning, as well as the utilization of forests; Government Regulation Number 76 of 2008 on Forest Rehabilitation and Reclamation; Government Regulation Number 60 of 2009 on amendments to the Government Regulation Number 45 of 2004 on the Protection of Forests; Government Regulation Number 2 of 2009 on Procedures for Procurement Loans and/or Grants and Subsidiary Loan and/or Grant; Government Regulation Number 26 of 2008 on National Spatial Plan; Government Regulation Number 10 of 2010 on Procedures and Functions Appropriation Changes in Forest Area; Government Regulation Number 15 of 2010 on Implementation of Spatial Planning; Government Regulation Number 36 of 2010 on Natural Resources Tourism on Wildlife, National Parks, Forest Parks and Natural Parks; Government Regulation Number 68 Year 2010 on the Forms and Procedures Public Role in Spatial Planning; Government Regulation Number 24 of 2010 on the Use of Forest Area; Government Regulation Number 5 of 2010 on the National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2010-2014. 34) Government Regulation Number 28 Year 2011 on the Area Management Reserves and Conservation Areas. Some laws and their legal derivatives and regulations on forestry sector, which may affect the implementation of sustainable forest management, especially the laws that supposedly have a direct impact on REDD+. 1. The delay of Spatial Planning and Establishment of Spatial Planning Law Number 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning (PR) and Government Regulation (PP) Number 26 of 2008 on National Spatial Plan (Spatial-N) is the legal basis for the use or utilization of space that users of natural resources must obey. The law firmly states about regulation of the function of cultivated and protected territories. The regulation of law derivatives regulates the criteria and requirements that must be met to establish an area functioned for cultivation and protected territory. The criteria of areas functioned for protected land adopted many Government laws and regulations on forestry (the Law Number 41 of 1999 and Government Regulation Number 44 on the Forest Planning). In the last four years, local governments (provincial and district/municipality) are changing the Provincial Spatial Plan (Spatial-P). This causes considerable impact against forestry, especially the forests and the concession forests where the areas get shrunk as this happens to the IUPHHK area, both natural forests and plantations. Although the PR and Spatial-N state that the minimum forest area is at least 30 percent of the watershed (DAS) and/or island, but it by no means should be taken the minimum extents. Outside Java, the average forest area is still above 60 percent. Local governments tend to expand the cultivation of non-forest areas, which reduces the existing forests today. In its direction on utilization of forest area by 2030, the Ministry of Forestry projected the amount and function of areas for conservation forest, protected forest, production forest, and area rationalization for non-forestry utility. Effective forest area in 2030 is predicted to downsize into 83 percent of the total forest area at this time. Road Map of the Ministry of Forestry projected that in 2011 natural forests to be managed was only about 25.0 million hectares, while the Forest Plantation (Industry Plantation, People’s Forest Plantation, Village Forest, and Community Forest) was approximately 23.5 million acres. Perhaps this is a realistic projection, so that production forests which can be managed through the Management Permit Timber Forest Product (IUPHHK) were only about 48.5 million hectares. That was in line with the results of Bappenas study in 2010 indicating that the use of production forests for timber products was about 48 million hectares. 2. The Authority of Decentralization to Local Government In the last decade a lot of pressure on forest management comes from the need of land use for development of other sectors (farming, mining, infrastructure, and regional growth) and community (land tenure). Such pressures pose impact against the efforts to achieve the Sustainable Production of Natural Forest Management (PHPL). This is triggered by the movement of a pendulum towards decentralization of authority that was initiated with the reformation era in 1998. Discrepancies between Law Number 41 of 1999 on forestry, Law Number 32 of 2004 on Regional Autonomy, Law Number 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and the Special Autonomy Law in Aceh and Papua, results in overlap and ambiguity of authority and uncertainty areas. Regulations derived from some laws include the Government Regulation Number 6 of 2007, Government Regulation Number 3 of 2008, Government Regulation Number 38 of 2007, Government Regulation Number 26 of 2008, and Government Regulation Number 2 of 2008. In addition, the related implementing regulation includes local government regulation (Perda) such as Aceh Provincial Government Qanun Number 14 of 2002 Section 3. Decentralization in reality does not principally change the business persons’ position. The difference lies in the government, namely some forest management authority that initially was in the central government’s hand, but then was handed over to local governments. Mardipriyono (2004) reported that as many as 39 overlapping forestry rules between central and local authorities. Furthermore, excessive government oversight results in high economic costs. Law Number 32 of 2004 on Regional Autonomy gives broad authority to the Governor and Regent/Mayor primarily on utilization of space in their territory. These powers include granting the licenses to certain sectors, such as agriculture and mining which are often in conflict with the forestry sector. Forest area, which occupies more than 60 percent of the total land area in each province, often becomes the object of conflict between the Central Government (Ministry of Forestry) and the local government. Permit granted by the governor and/or the regent to sectors other than forestry (e.g. plantation and mining) commonly overlaps with the concession forest areas. These condition harms forest-based business in sustainable area as it is undermined by plantations and mining in the forest area, where practically plantation mining management often uses people to get engaged face-to-face with IUPHHK holders. Meanwhile, the Local Government, which is obliged to mediate the conflict resolution, remains helpless. Law enforcement against violation of licensing by the local government’s misconduct does not work. Despite the Government Regulation Number 10 of 2010 on Procedures of Appropriation and Forest Changes Functions and Government Regulation Number 24 of 2010 on the Use of Forest Area, in reality it is difficult to control the execution of those two regulations. Local governments often put their own interests at the expense of forest conditions, which leads to environmental damage. Changes in the function of protected forests or production forest to nonforest purposes are likely to increase as a result of the revised Spatial-P. If such changes occur in the production forest managed in carbon-based approaches, it will cause a leak (leakages) and this will in return reduce the carbon revenue that has been multilaterally agreed. Eventually, the Ministry of Forestry issued Ministerial Regulation Number (Permenhut) Number 1/Menhut-II/2011 on Timber Utilization Permit (IPK) and Permenhut P. 18/MenhutII/2011 Forest Area Usage Guidelines. Both these ministerial regulations can directly interfere with the whole planning and management of forest concessions. Some items in those regulations neglect the necessity of the lender companies to coordinate with the forest utilization permit holders. This causes PHL certificate to be delayed. 3. The Threat of SFM Performance on the Declining of Carbon Stock Enhancement and REDD+. Implementing regulations issued by the Ministry of Forestry has a direct impact on the achievement of SFM, especially on the aspect of the efficiency and effectiveness of the legislation itself, among others: No. Permenhut Number P. 43/Menhut-II/2008 on the Land Landing; P. 6/Menhut-II/2007 on the Work Plan and Annual Work Plan of UPHHK in the Natural Forest and Ecosystem Restoration in Production in Natural Forest on Production Forest, and P. 55/Menhut -II/2006 which was modified to P. 63/Menhut-II/2006 on Forest Product Management (PUHH). Basic implementation of the scheme for carbon absorption activities/storage and REDD+ guides Permenhut P. 36/Menhut-II/2009 on Carbon Absorption/Storage, P. 68/Menhut-II/2008 on Demonstration Activity, and P.30/Menhut-II/2009 on Procedures for REDD. The management of primary forests and peat lands currently becomes the focus of implementation of international commitments such as Norway in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (LoI Indonesia-Norway). Support for temporary suspension of the granting of new licenses on primary forest and peat land comes form of Presidential Instruction Number 10 of 2011, dated 20 May 2011. On the other hand, carbon sequestration scheme can be carried out through reforestation of forest areas and areas with less vegetation and critical lands, including forest plantation activities (Industrial Timber 'HTI', Forest Plantation 'HTR', Community Forests 'HKM', forest restoration 'RE' which plant in their forest areas). 4. The Discrepancy of Tenure Right. Tenure implies that there is a right over land by individuals or groups or indigenous communities for use in a variety of purposes and the fulfillment of everyday life. The Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry recognizes the existence of indigenous forest apart from state forest. But in fact, in many regions, the communities in and around the forest claim that the concession land and forests and also the abandoned to be of their own that they inherit from their predecessors. They do not have any evidence, but statement by the witness and by the surrounding communities who are aware of the existence (status) of the land. Obscurity of recognition without evidence (documents) often raises conflicts in the use of resources (land and forest). The rights of indigenous and/or local communities regarding land tenure often result in horizontal conflicts, especially against the users of forest and area resources. Tenure rights are stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945, which states "the state shall recognize and respect the customary law units as well as traditional rights as long as they are still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary state of Indonesia". The mandate of the Constitution is still far from real. Mediation for conflict resolution often does not produce the expected solution because government tends to leave it to companies of IUPHHK holders to settle it. The community is positioned as a "frontline guard" to secure and protect the forest (safe guard) and plays the key role to success in curbing the additional leakages of GHG emissions. COP-16 in Cancun (Mexico) promoted the community’s functions and vital role in reducing GHG emissions. Without consideration of the role of the community it is inevitable that conflicts will occur, which tends to eliminate the greater benefit received by the beneficiaries of the resource. Therefore, the resolution of conflict over forest and land use should be accompanied with strong determination for multilateral benefit, for the Government, private sectors, and community. 5. Unstable Policies on Climate Change Mitigation Situations encountered in the mitigation of climate change can be briefly described, among others, (a) the accuracy of the data of forest areas, (b) changes in the forest function and use, (c) commitment to sustainable forest management, (d) commitment to emission reduction, (e) coordination of REDD+ implementation, (f) momentary permit suspension of primary forest and peat land permits, (g) rules on the use of carbon credits, (h) a reference level of emissions, and the institutional mechanisms MRV. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in support of REDD+ is still not well coordinated. The collaboration patterns are quite varied, ranging from activities that are more focused on capacity building, institutional development and implementation of demonstration activities (readiness) to the cooperative activities focused more on carbon credits for REDD+ as LoI Norway. The cooperation with Norway has produced the issuance of Presidential Regulation Number 10 of 2011, dated 20 May 2011. This regulation is important because it gives attention to the definition of natural forests, limits of activity, and carbon leakage management system. The government also needs to immediately issue incentive policies as an instrument to encourage developers, private sectors and the public in implementing climate change mitigation, particularly in the prevention of deforestation and forest degradation, restoration of production, and rehabilitation of marginal land through tree planting and agro-forestry (REDD+). This policy should be a priority because of the pressure by the community in and around the forest is very heavy with a pretext for various purposes to make ends meet. In addition, local interests to develop settlements, cities, and grant licensing for the development of non-forestry cultivation is very dominant and has an appeal (attractiveness) which is very powerful to be passed by the local government. 6. Weak Law Enforcement Violation against the law in general without exception also occurs in the forestry governance, which weakens the performance of SFM. Many examples that justify this opinion, among other things: (a) the rampant illegal logging, especially in IUPHHK of natural forests which are difficult to eradicate, (b) loggers and forest arsons that keep coming, and (c) the forests arsons for land clearance for plantations that still happens in some places during the dry season. It often occurs in the handling of cases in interpreting laws differ from one another, depending on each law enforcement version. For example, Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry is contradicted with the Law Number 32 of 2004 on Regional Autonomy, and also the Book of Common Criminal Law and/or the Civil Procedure Code (Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure). Strict and consistent law enforcement (including that toward the government officials) over violations committed by the IUPHHK holders and Environmental Service Management Unit (IUPJL) holders that do not implement sustainable forest management and other obligations in accordance with applicable regulations, as well as criminal forestry. Ministry of Forestry (2011) implemented a series of procedures related to law enforcement in the forestry sphere. Prevention of violations of the laws requires study on the policies and regulations that lead to the indication of law violation. Also, it is necessary to study on the policies and regulations of Timber Legality Assurance System (SVLK) and Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). Independent and internal assessment (Inspectorate General, Ministry of Forestry) is performed by applying criteria and indicators of good forest governance (GFG). Establishment of one-roof prosecutors and police (enforcement system, ORES) is selected based on their integrity and adequate knowledge of sustainable development, including its application in the forestry sector with adequate remuneration so as to be the front line of law enforcement against forestry crimes. It is necessary to select special judge with integrity and excellent understanding to deal with tough environment cases, including that related with the forestry sector, with adequate remuneration so as to facilitate and uphold justice and the rule of law within the scope of sustainable natural resource management. There should be improvement of capacity of law enforcement in general in order to understand the whole forestry legislation, as well as methods of inquiry and investigation that can be used to combat crime in the field of forestry. The legal impotence, particularly in the forestry sector, results in the declining performance of sustainable forest management. 7. The Moratorium of New Permit on Management of Primary Forest and Peat Land In accordance with Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry, forest and peat land (which is in the forest area) is essentially the duty of the Government to regulate. But specifically for peat land management outside the forest area (in the area other uses, APL) there is yet no regulation. Terms of forest management are regulated in Government Regulation Number 6 of 2007 in conjunction with Regulation Number 3 of 2008 on Forest Management and Forest Utilization Management Planning, not excluding forest management of the peat lands. Temporary termination (two years) from 2010 to 2012 on the granting of new management of primary forests and peat lands actually does not affect the permits that have been obtained by IUPHHK holders and those who are proposing renewal or a new license to the extent of SP-1 (the document has already been filed from field inspection by the Ministry of Forestry). Signing of Letter of Intent between Indonesia and Norway is in away an effort to bolster the mutual commitment of both countries to GHG emission reduction. The effort is then followed up with the publication of Presidential Decree Number 10 of 2011 on the granting of New Permit Termination and the Improvement of Primary Forest and Peat Land Governance. In a brief, the temporary termination of new permits in primary forest and peat lands will have implications over sustainable forest management efforts and at the same time the effort in achieving the success in increasing carbon stocks and GHG emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). REDD+ in the conservation forest seems not much affected, but the results are not pretty much fruitful as Annex-1 countries are more interested in peat as carbon storage and in the largest temporary license suspension of new primary natural forest and peat land. 8. Is REDD+ Effective when Implemented on Sustainable Forest Management? REDD+ or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest degradation scheme is believed by many as one of the effective ways to mitigate climate change. With the scheme, emissions from forest area, which is about 19 % of the world total, is expected to be suppressed. Various mechanisms offered in the REDD+. Basically, this is how to assess carbon stock stored in forests. REDD+ is the development of REDD schemes which were perceived to be rigid and only appreciate forest conservation efforts to retain carbon. REDD+ also assess the sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest enrichment to increase carbon stocks. Although incompletely clear, the UN program to deal with REDD, the UNFCCC estimates that at least 30 billion US$ per year would flow from emitter countries (Annex-1) through the scheme. A number of demonstration activities (DA) during the stage of readiness for REDD+ were performed to see how the implementation of the scheme, with Indonesia was chosen as the best location of trial because of its vast forests (the world’s number 3 after Brazil and the Republic Democratic of Congo, RDC). A number of bilateral cooperation has also been agreed within the REDD+ framework. However, the most 'exciting' is the signing of a Letter of Intent (LoI) between Indonesia and Norway, in May 2010 because it took place amid the absence of certainty about the REDD+ future, and Indonesia dared to cease the utilization of its forest and peat land held at the expense of the agreement. Presidential Instruction to terminate was a part of a national action plans to reduce GHG emissions, which is also the measure taken by the national interest. It also proves that previously there has been a blue print of the policy as set out in the Medium Term Development Plan. The instruction is also part of the implementations of the Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry and Law Number 5 of 1960 on Agrarian Principles. The issuance of Presidential Instruction Number 10 of 2011, dated 20 May 2011 on New Permit Suspension and Improvement of Governance of Primary Forest and Peat Land, slightly dampened the excitement that was happening. Parties that objected to the LoI were mainly coming from the oil palm planters as their chances for expansion were bogged down while this was a vital and strategic sector for the economy (AgroIndonesia, 2011). On the other hand, the Instruction also may conflict with other legislation such as the Law Number 41 of 1999 on Forestry. It even collides with Presidential Decree Number 32 of 1990 and the Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture (Permentan) Number 14 of 2009 which allow the use of peat land less than three meters deep. In addition, other possibility that also can cause confusion (dispute) is the collision of the 'indicative map of the new license termination with the Spatial Planning, which can lead to new problems. The policy to terminate new permits potentially cause new problems in the field, especially due to forceful law enforcement as well as external pressure. Therefore the Government should immediately fix an indicative map of the new permit termination. B. The SVLK and REDD+ The rate of deforestation and forest degradation in Indonesia is very high, threatening the sustainability of the forest resource and contributing to global climate change. One cause of the loss of forest resources is illegal logging. One effort to stop or at least to prevent illegal logging is to cut ongoing illegal timber trade. Control over illegal timber transactions can be made through labeling/certification of the timber origin by means of the SVLK in the timber industry. The SVLK is expected to guarantee that timber trade will be legally accountable, so that the ideals of SFM can be maintained in the long term. The SVLK implementation among timber industry is intended to reduce the rate of illegal logging and illegal timber trade, and to improve forest governance and efforts to achieve SFM. Control over illegal timber trade through the SVLK in turn is expected to minimize the potential loss of carbon in the areas where timber originates. Hypothetical, the SVLK will provide a negative incentive for entrepreneurs who run illegal timber industry and/or illegal timber trade. With these negative incentives, the intensity and areas of illegal logging can be scaled down, thus this will indirectly increase the accumulation of carbon stocks ("green-carbon") in Indonesian forests. With regard to the issue of global warming and its relation to forest resources, there is an attempt to connect between them, namely to reduce as much as possible the rate of emissions of carbon contained in the timber. However, REDD+ policies at the national level and its implementation in local level are still in the continuing process of mutual understanding so that REDD+ is not yet operational or not optimally operationalized in the field. With this condition, many areas are not yet able to make REDD+ to withhold carbon in the earth. Ideally, if the REDD+ can be implemented, the ideals of sustainable forest management and prosperous socio-economic community can be achieved. One of the factors that hinder the implementation of REDD is the absence of "coercive force" that drives stakeholders to the understanding of REDD+, and rationally and voluntarily implement the idea in the field. The question then is: is there any "coercive power" that can rationally work and provide positive incentives from forest stakeholders to implement the REDD+, so that the ideals of SFM can be reached. Based on the results of the multi-stakeholder process (public consultation) by BAPPENAS, there are three major driving factors that cause deforestation and forest degradation. The three factors are (i) the ineffective spatial planning and weak tenure, (ii) ineffective forest management and (iii) impotent governance and weak law enforcement. How these three factors lead to deforestation and forest degradation is illustrated in the following fishbone diagram (Figure 1). So many driving factors that cause deforestation and forest degradation, the effort to control the rate of deforestation and forest degradation is not easy. It takes a good strategy by taking into account the relationship between the factors that lead to the strategies not to cause counterproductive impacts toward nature. In the context of this study, further description is focused on the SVLK implementation as a strategy to reduce emissions from forest degradation due to illegal logging but still consider the relation to other factors. TATA RUANG YANG LEMAH MASALAH TENURIAL Konflik Lahan Tidak pernah selesai Tidak Menerapkan Konsep Pembangunan Berkelanjutan Tidak adanya alternative mata pencaharian Partisipasi Rendah Paradigma Pembangunan Belum Patuh Pada prinsip SD Lack of Leadership UNIT MANAGEMEN HUTAN TIDAK EFEKTIF Stok data dan Informasi lemah Sistem Penguruhan Hutan lemah Kapasitas Individu Pekerja Kehutanan/Pengelolaan Masyrakat Adat belum daiakui Batas kawasan tidak pernah mantap Perencanaan Sektoral tdk Terpadu Organisasi Pengelolaan Tidak Performe DEFORESTASI Konversi Terencana (perkebunan dan pertanian, tambang, infrastruktur, dll) Konversi Tidak Terencana (perambahan, kebakaran), Illegal logging, Target Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Kesenjangan Supply & Demand Kayu & Oil Palm Koordinasi yang lemah Ketidakadilan distribusi pendapatan dari sektor Hutan Penagakan Hukum Lemah DEGRADASI Efektivitas dan Efisiensi Rendah Transparansi, Partispasi & akuntabilitas rendah Pengelolaan tidak bekerja di lapangan GOVERNANCE Dasar Hukum Lemah DASAR DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM LEMAH Figure 1: Identification the causes of deforestation and forest degradation through fishbone analysis (BAPPENAS, 2010). The SVLK implementation is one of strategies that is expected to effectively decrease the rate of illegal logging and, in turn, can lower levels of degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. Timber industry is required to acquire the SVLK certificate to ensure that timber used by the timber industry come from legal sources. The SVLK is a program to assess the performance of forest enterprises from the legality of timber that they produce. Thus, the benefits of the SVLK in its efforts to achieve SFM is highly dependent on the SVLK input program even other programs to improve regional stability issues and licensing policies, particularly in the achievement of SFM through the strengthening of the production. In the context of REDD+, the implementation of these policies is related to forestry development concerning the climate change mitigation. As mentioned above, basically the policy is such as: 1. To control deforestation and degradation, which means control over the conversion of convertible production forest (HPK) where the forest still exists and over performance improvement of forest management in achieving SFM; 2. To increase forest, which means improvement of forested areas through the accelerated development of HTI, HTR, HKM, Forest Village, Community Forests, Forest and Land Rehabilitation. Both of these policies can be achieved only if the preconditions are met, namely the presence of five programs (Figure 2) to resolve the following issues: 1. Resolution over problems of uncertainty with the status of forest areas, by synchronizing the forest planning with the planning system development in other sectors, as well as the resolution of conflicts related to forest areas to ensure land rights; 2. The flow development of the FMU; H U BU N GAN PU SAT -DAERAH (Kapasitas & T ata H ubungan Kerja antar Lembaga) KEBIJAKAN PEN GU RAN GAN KON VERSI H U T AN PRODU KSI YG DPT DIKON VERSI (H PK) KEBIJAKAN PEMBAN GU N AN KPH (Dana, SDM, Ketepatan Lokasi Prioritas) 5 PEMBERDAYAAN MASYARAKAT (pendampingan, penyederhanaan ijin, akses kredit, dukungan Pemda) 2 ORGAN ISASI KEMEN T ERIAN KEH U T AN AN : · Perencanaan Nasional (Evaluasi, · Penyelesaian konflik terkait MRV) 4 · Hubungan dengan daerah untuk kawasan hutan · Efisiensi pelayanan & pelaksanaan penguatan kelemb masy MENCEGAH DEFORESTASI DAN DEGRADASI, MEMPERLUAS TEGAKAN HUTAN, DAN MEWUJUDKAN PENGELOLAAN HUTAN SECARA ADIL perijinan 1 3 PERBAIKAN IKLIM IN VEST ASI (penyederhanaan ijin, minimasi biaya transaksi, pajak/ retribusi) LOKASI BEBAS KON FLIK/ KEJELASAN H AK AT AS T AN AH · Renstra 2010 – 2014 (Sinergi antar Eselon 1) · Prioritas Program dan Kegiatan REFORMASI BIROKRASI, MEDIASI & PEN YELESAIAN KON FLIK Figure 2. Five major prerequisite for the implementation of climate change mitigation programs and their implications for the organizational governance of the Ministry of Forestry and the establishment of the strategic plan, programs and activities. 3. Simplification of various policies and regulations related to the licensing and implementation of forest product utilization by the private sectors, and state enterprises and rationalization of forestry taxation; 4. Harmonious relationship between the MoF with various stakeholders for strengthening community institutions that will and are being involved in the implementation of forest management; 5. Harmonious relationship between the MoF and local governments in controlling the conversion of forested convertible production forest areas (HPK). If the resolution of the five problems constitutes the requirement to establish the implementation of SVLK and REDD policies, then the SVLK program is not associated with the attainment of the completion of the five issues. II. Implementing Projects and Areas Mapping Issues. The sources of funding can take the form of bilateral and multilateral aid or grants, soft loans and debt relief. At this time, funding that had been prepared by the Multilateral Development Banks such as the World Bank is a fund to help prepare for the implementation of REDD+ activities or activities of DA called the Readiness and investment funds. One of the multilateral funds to support the activities and investments are Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), and the Climate Investment Fund (CIF) managed by the World Bank. CIF is further divided into two, namely, (1) the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) under which theer is Forest Investment Fund/Program (FIP) to support the implementation of REDD+, (2) Clean Technology Fund (CTF) to support and develop the activities/programs reduction of emissions or the use of lowemission technologies to become a bigger scale such as one in the agricultural sector. There are also a lot of bilateral funds offered to Indonesia to support the implementation of REDD+ activities, such as that of German (KfW and GTZ through the Bureau of the Ministry of Forestry KLN), Australia-AUSAID, and others. Sources of international funding within the framework of addressing climate change through mitigation and adaptation can be in the form of multilateral cooperation, bilaterally or through international banks, such as the World Bank (WB) or the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The funding from grants ranges from soft loans to invest in terms of the provision of Carbon Credit. The amount of funds available is very large. The United States (USAID) provides almost US$ 60 million in Indonesia, diverting the funds to tropical forest conservation in Sumatra and Borneo. The debt-for-nature swap is authorized under the US Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA), aimed at mitigating climate change by reducing deforestation which releases greenhouse gases. They are all aware that Indonesia's forests are facing tremendous pressure domestically and globally due both to economic growth at home and the global economic crisis. TFCA was established in 1998 to help eligible low and middle income countries with concessional loans from the US Government to substitute some portion of their off-shore debts for local domestic currency toward tropical forest conservation and protection activities. TFCA is implemented through bilateral agreements with eligible countries. Indonesia and 13 other countries have concluded 17 TFCA agreements by December 2010. Indonesia and the US conducted “Sumatra TFCA”, the first TFCA agreement that focused on the conservation of the forests in the island. The US Government announced the first grants under the first phase of its 2009 TFCA agreement with Indonesia. USAID provided five grants over the next three years to local NGOs working to conserve and manage forests and peat lands in Sumatra in better ways. The five-leading grantees include Yayasan Leuser Indonesia, Institute Green Aceh, KKI-WARSI, Jikalahari, and Petra. The 2nd TFCA agreement was signed on 29 September 2011 between US Government (USG), Government of Indonesia (GOI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia (WWF Indonesia) as swap partner, to protect globally-significant biodiversity, secure forest carbon, and improve community livelihoods in a manner consistent with protecting forest in Kalimantan (hereafter referred to as TFCA Kalimantan). TFCA Kalimantan program will last until 2019, implemented through grant-making scheme and administered by KEHATI – the Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation to eligible entities. TFCA agreements consist of three agreements that are interlinked and an integral part of each other, namely: (1) Debt for Nature Swap with Respect to Certain Debt Owed by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to the Government of the United State of America Agreement, (2) Swap Fee Contractual Agreement among the Government of the United State of America, The Nature Conservancy, and Yayasan World Wide Fund for Nature – Indonesia, and (3) Forest Conservation Agreement (FCA) among the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, The Nature Conservancy, and Yayasan World Wide Fund for Nature Indonesia. Other USAID's project in Indonesia is the Indonesian Forestry and Climate Support (IFACS). The project is working on a substantial contribution toward achieving the Government of Indonesia's goal to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2020 through providing compelling incentives and developing the capacity of forest stakeholders to support low emissions development strategies. Implemented as a Task Order under the Prosperity, Livelihoods and Conserving Ecosystems (PLACE) IQC, USAID IFACS seeks to reduce the threats of deforestation and climate change, and to help the Government of Indonesia (GoI) conserve the country's tropical forests, wildlife, and ecosystem processes (including carbon sequestration). The program has three closely-related technical components. The first component targets to improve forest resource governance by engaging and increasing the capacity of stakeholders— multiple government levels, communities, and the private sector - in spatial and regional planning, decision making, and conflict resolution, in order to create an enabling environment conducive to long-term sustainable growth and biodiversity conservation. The second component focuses on improved management and conservation of forest resources given a changing environment. Activities under this component will increase the local capacity and foster sustainable forest management and conservation, especially at the community and landscape levels. Local and regional climate change vulnerability and adaptability assessments are a critical part of management strategies and appropriate technological packages. The third component addresses the socioeconomic incentives and financial resources required to sustain forests under management and conservation. Activities ensure improved livelihoods of local inhabitants, provide long-term financial mechanisms, and establish market linkages for ecosystem services. The fourth component encompasses project management and coordination. The project works in eight targeted landscape sites covering over 10,000,000 hectares of forests in Papua, Kalimantan, and Sumatra. In the first 11 months of the project, climate change vulnerability and adaptation workshops were held in all eight landscapes to both garner interest in the overall program and to define mitigation and adaptation strategies for communities within the landscapes. Tabel 1. Existing development/programs related donors. Lembaga/Project Program KEHATI Foundation and Conservation The TFCA - Sumatra scheme, is to be considered a subsidized debt-for-nature International (CI). Managed by KEHATI swap, which is the first of its kind in Indonesia and the biggest debt for nature swap Location Donors Sumatera Island USAID Kalimantan Island USAID (i) Bintan, Batam, Lingga, and Natuna The Asian Development Bank scheme by the US government for supporting environmental conservation initiatives. TNC and WWF, managed by KEHATI The TFCA – Kalimantan: to protect globally significant biodiversity, secure forest carbon, and improve community livelihoods in a manner consistent with protecting forest in Kalimantan COREMAP-CTI Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program-Coral Triangle Initiative Project. districts in Riau province; Project implementation will focus on improving the management, sustainability and resilience of marine protected areas (MPAs). (ii) Central Tapanuli and North Nias (ADB) districts in North Sumatra province; (iii) Mentawai district in West Sumatra province; (iv) Anambas national MPA in Anambas district, Riau province; (v) Pulau Pieh national MPA in Pariaman district, West Sumatra Province; and (vi) Gilimatra national MPA in North Lombok district, West Nusa Tenggara province (project area) LTSI Forest Governance, Market and Climate Program in Indonesia All Indonesia areas DFID Lembaga/Project Tetra Tech ARD Program Location USAID Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support Project (USAID IFACS). USAID Donors USAID IFACS seeks to reduce the threats of deforestation and climate change, and help the Government of Indonesia (GOI) conserve the country’s tropical forests, wildlife, and ecosystem processes (including carbon sequestration). JICA the Climate Change Program Loan, is aimed at bolstering developing countries’ efforts National JAPAN GOV National level WB to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve sustainable economic growth. (a) a “Policy Matrix,” which lists targets-actions of climate change agreed upon between the governments of Indonesia and Japan in line with Indonesia’s development plans, including the Medium-Term National Development Plan and (b) a “Coordination Mechanism” among the Indonesian government's concerned ministries through a Steering/Technical Committee, and between the Indonesian government and development partners -- the French Development Agency (Agence Française de Développement - AFD), the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and JICA, through policy dialogue. The World Bank Ratings for the Climate Change Development Policy Loan Project for Indonesia. The project process brought together policy makers, policy implementers, development partners and other stakeholders in a dialogue process. This was relatively unique at the time for the breadth of issues covered and the number of agencies convened. However, the number of agencies and actions covered also created challenges for communicating clearly about the rationale for the operation, the use of the funds, and the links to the specific policy actions. The time and resource commitment needed to do this successfully should not be underestimated. Lembaga/Project Program Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Managing Climate Risks for the Urban Poor. Fund Location Donors The programme aims to roll out 25 The Asian infrastructure Development Bank projects and other The programme will support comprehensive, linked approaches to urban climate resilience activities to protect 2.2 million (ADB), the UK - DFID proofing activities. Projects will include assistance for preparing climate resilient poor and the Rockefeller infrastructure projects that benefit the poor and assistance for incorporating climate in target cities in Bangladesh, India, change and disaster risk and resilience approaches into city plans. It will also support Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, early warning systems and regulatory reforms, as well as research on lessons learned and Viet Nam by 2021. and vulnerable populations Foundation and best practices on urban climate change. International Animal Rescue and Indonesian Department of Nature Investigating the potential of Carbon Credit Financing to protect the Gunung Palung – West Kalimantan AusAID Aceh The Sungai Putri Ecological Corridor from Deforestation and Fragmentation. Conservation/PHKA Fauna and Flora Reducing Carbon emission from Deforestration in The Ulu Masen Ecosystem Aceh International (FFI) Community Climate, and Biodiversity Alliance (TNC); World Agroforestry Centre Forest and Climate Change Program in Indonesia (FORCLIME), Kapuas Hulu in West (ICRAF); Kalimantan. World Education; Winrock International ; University of Germany supports Indonesia's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Queensland; Natural Resources Law forestry sector, to conserve forest biodiversity within the regional Heart of Borneo Institute of Indonesia (IHSA); Sekala Initiative and to implement sustainable forest management for the benefit of the people. Germany's immediate action will focus on helping Indonesia to get ready for the implementation of a future REDD mechanism ("readiness process") East and West Kalimantan AusAID ; USAID; GIZ Lembaga/Project Program The Nature Conservation and Ministry Berau Forest Carbon Program. Delivering Practical Solutions to Support Development of Forestry of a National-level REDD Framework in Indonesia Government of Australia; Government Location Donors Berau Kalimantan USAID KALIMANTAN FORESTS AND CLIMATE PARTNERSHIP (KFCP) Central Kalimantan Australian Goverment Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation The Mawas Peatlands Conservation Project is located in southern Borneo in Central Central Kalimantan The and Province of Central Kalimantan Kalimantan, District Merang REDD Pilot Project. Musi Banyuasin. South Sumatera German Gov. Promoting the partnership efforts to reduce emission from deforestation and forest South Sumatera Japan Gov. Meru Betiri, east Java Japan Gov. East Kalimantan Multi donors of Indonesia; CARE; BOS; and Wetlands International Forestry Agency; Federal Dutch Governmen Ministry for the Environment; Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety; GIZ; JICA and ITTO degradation of tropical peatland in south Sumatra through the enhancement of conservation and restoration activities Seven & i Holdings Ltd; ITTO; JICA Targeting emissions reduction (carbon stocks conservation and enhancement) of 1.2 and Ministry of Forestry Million Tons in CO2 Emissions, a Volume Equivalent to Approximately 50% of the Total Annual CO2 Emissions Tropenbos International Programme (TBI-IP) Indonesia Trobenbos and Kalimantan Forest Protection Management, Gunung Lumut Protection Forest, located in Pasir District - East Kalimantan Province and Danau Sentarum National Park, located in Kapuas Hulu District (West Kalimantan Province) Royal Lembaga/Project Program Ministry of Forestry CI; ACSIRO; CIFOR and PT Location Donors Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership (SFCP) project, Jambi Province, Sumatra Jambi, Sumatera Australian Gov. Membrano Basin Carbon and Community Conservation Project Membrano Basin. Papua AusAID Korea-Indonesia cooperation project for climate change adaptation and mitigation in West Nusa Tenggara, Central Lombok Korean Gov. Mamberamo Alasmandiri KIPCCF and KOICA the forestry sector, Others Issues from the fields. Demand for sustainable management of natural resources should ideally come from constituents, but in Indonesia pressure from constituents on climate change and land use and forestry is lacking. Since the political transition in 1998, Indonesian civil society organisations (CSOs) and media have significantly strengthened their voice and increased pressure on government for accountability, especially on corruption issues. Civil society pressure assisted in the creation of the Anti Corruption Commission and the Constitutional Court, and in pushing for legislative reform such as the Anti Corruption Law (1999), the Freedom of Information Law (2009), the Environmental Protection Law (2009) and various by-laws on good governance around the country. However, local civil society efforts to reduce environmental damage are weak and uncoordinated, rarely involving coalitions between civil society, private sector and parliament. Donors have been providing support to government – such as training on spatial planning and support for regulatory reform – with limited impact, as these efforts have not been accompanied by support for building demand from society for reform. Improvements on key aspects of governance are vital to improving outcomes for the forestry sector, yet government officials can resist or undermine reforms which might threaten sources of patronage. Research is needed to inform civil society action on land use and forestry issues. Research on the political economy of land use and forestry would assist in analysing how advocates could most effectively struggle for improved governance at the local level, in the face of the incentives discussed above. Research is also needed on what policies would most effectively improve outcomes for smallholders, affected communities, indigenous people, women, and other vulnerable groups. Java has the ecological character of the limestone areas, rocky, dry and always short of water. The populations can only organize the land for planting cassava and other crops. What was worse, until the 1970s, the government introduced a regulation that prohibited people to plant teak trees which is actually a type of woody plants that are best suited to the ecological conditions of the region. These conditions caused the people live in poverty and drove them migrate to the city and work in the informal sector, a simpliest solution for them to get out of poverty. The district even fell into one of the poorest districts in Indonesia during the New Order. Nevertheless, the spirit of the government and the people to get out of poverty is very high. Moreover, after the ban on planting teak trees removed. The people with the encouragement of the central and local governments carried out green movement so that current conditions Gunungkidul is now green enough with teak trees and the community’s wells become watery, so that people do not lack clean water even in the dry season. With these experiences, people realize the importance of tree planting and environmental benefits in addition to economically beneficial to trade the timber. Without having to be encouraged by the government’s program, the community obtained their own seeds to fill the bare land and replace the harvested timber with new plants. Unwittingly, carbon accumulation occurs, and these initiatives contribute to the reduced risk of global warming (global warming). Conducive dialogue between communities and local governments in the development of community forests has prompted a variety of community forestry pilot projects implemented in the region, including the certification of timber legality for community forests stretching over seven villages in three sub-districts. Local initiatives produce a variety of self-help groups such as the Farm Forestry Working Group at the district level which facilitate stakeholders related to the management of community forests. In essence, the initiatives triggered growing forum of dialogue between local governments, NGOs, universities, and private forest farmer groups in Gunungkidul. Still, there are things to be done in the future. In spite of the the fact that with the formation of forums and institutions, as well as the iniiatives of carbon accumulation and the salvation of local forest ecosystems, the economic well-being seems to remain unchanged. What efforts to be done? The potential of forest ecosystems where the people at the core of the pioneering initiative to rescue regional ecosystems, as well as institutions that had been established, seemed underutilized economically and ecologically. If all stakeholders associated with the production and timber trade system are not moving forward together, the farmers’ enthusiasm to plant and to save carbon will fade. This will jeopardize the sustainability of local ecosystems. The community Forest areas, especially those in the southern part of Java are generally the type of arid regions which cause the inhabitants to have only relatively limited livelihood. Even some areas are categorized as the minus area because most of the populations live below the poverty line due to lack of livelihood. In such regions the steps the people take to survive is to migrate and work in the urban informal sector. The people’s economy is especially vulnerable and livelihood insecurity is very crucial in the region. Meanwhile, lands in the rural areas are generally utilized to plant trees and agricultural crops. Much of this area is state-owned forest managed by Perhutani, and the other parts are used for residential, agricultural land, community forest, and other uses. Timber potential in Java drives the local economy with the development of some of the timber-processing industry. Teak, mahogany, and “sengon laut” are primary timber commodity that have their own market share and have become an alternative source of household income for the prople. However, the poor forest governance leads to the emergence of unfavorable disputes / conflicts and poses impact on ecological crisis that trigger environmental problems such as floods that hit most of the regions which have not previously been flooded. This condition is further exacerbated by the increasingly free-market timber trade with the presence of a large timber merchant to buy timber directly to individual community and without control. Actually there is a potential governance of timber trade which could dampen timber market liberalization. A partnership between private forest farmers and entrepreneurs through a slightly higher price mechanism is thought to be capable of binding commitment among stakeholders in the more deliberate forest management. Business persons of timber-processing industry are expected to provide agricultural tools and seeds to farmers, while farmers grow, produce, and trade their timber in coordination with the business persons with better price for guarantee. However, partnership between timber-processing companies with the farmers since the 1980s has faded as the market became increasingly liberal. A totally free market mechanism becomes important driver of people forest resource management instability. Once the condition continues, it will trigger a state of unsustainable forest management, leading to the critical areas that endanger the entire ecosystem of the region. What is worse, with the absence of government regulations to govern timber market at the local level, and the low-increasing economic value of timber in the short term will imediately cause ecological crisis in the forest ecosystems that treatens the ecosystem and economies in the region. Local government needs to be aware of such condition and take an active role in building a regulatory infrastructure that supports the establishment of sustainable forest ecosystem (eco-region). Non-governmental organizations with self-help community groups can help facilitate the establishment of sustainable forest sustainable region. Meanwhile, the market and private sector need to create a more environmentally-friendly timber production and trade by establishing a better system of production and trade. To achieve such ideals, each stakeholder should be given better space/good forum to sit down together to participate, to get committed together, and to act collectively in a coordinated way in rearranging sustainable people's timber forest ecosystem in the region. Universities are obliged to encourage the establishment of common ground where stakeholders can give their commitments to saving the forest ecosystems in the upstream region, because if it is not done, then the ecological disaster in the downstream area will be getting worse (floods and droughts). The big questions to be answered are: (1) What institutional dialogue design which allows interlinked (connecting and channeling) representations of the stakeholders equally and fairly (equal representation) to eastablish the region as a whole sustainable forest eco-region, (2) What design of area management protocol that ensures distribution of economic, social, and ecological sustainability benefits fairly to the stakeholders, (3 ) What government regulation that can ensure the existence of institutional and protocols in establishing the sustainable forest eco-region. Approaches such as inter-party participation, dialogue forums, timber tradeeconomic governance, and regional governance eco-region are proposed to be developed in order to answer the three major questions. References BAPPENAS. 2010. Rancangan Strategi Nasional REDD+. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional, Jakarta. Indonesia – Australia Forest Carbon Partnership (IAFCP). November 28, 2012. http://iafcp.or.id/content/page/19/Indonesia-Australia-Forest-Carbon-Partnership IPR Team. 2011. Indonesia – Australia Forest Carbon Partnership: Independent Progress Report. Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). November 28 2012. http://iafcp.or.id/content/page/44/KFCP Indonesian National Carbon Accounting System (INCAS). November 28 2012. http://iafcp.or.id/content/page/54/INCAS-Program. The World Bank – Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (WB-FCPF). 2012. http://www.wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/05/26/0 00333038_20110526011749/Rendered/PDF/621000PID0P12400BOX358362B00Ma y0130.pdf. United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (UN-REDD). 2012. http://www.unredd.org/UNREDDProgramme/CountryActions/Indonesia/tabid/987/la nguage/en-US/Default.aspx The cooperation between the Government of Indonesia and the Royal Government of Norway. 2010. (Signed in Oslo on 26 May 2010). http://www.satgasreddplus.org/en/component/k2/item/62-joint-commitment-to-saveindonesias-natural-assets DNPI. 2010. Discussion Note: Next Steps on the Implementation of Letter of Intent. Norway Delegation Visit to DNPI Office. June 16, 2010. PowerPoint Presentation. Jakarta. MDB (ADB – WB – IFC) Forest Investment Plan. 2012. http://www.dephut.go.id/files/Draft%20Indonesia%20Forest%20Investment%20Plan. pdf. USAID. 2010. USAID Indonesian Forest and Climate Support (IFACS) Project. http://indonesia.usaid.gov/en/USAID/Activity/274/USAID_Indonesian_Forest_and_ Climate_Support_USAID_IFACS_Project. USAID. 2011. USAID-Indonesian Forest and Climate Support Project (USAID IFACS): Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). USAID - Tetra Tech ARD. Burlington, Vermont, USA.. USAID. 2011. USAID Indonesia Forestry and Climate Support Project (USAID IFACS): Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. USAID - Tetra Tech ARD. Burlington, Vermont, USA. Forests and Climate Change Programme (FORCLIME). http://forclime.org/index.php/en/background Boer, R., Nugroho, B and Ardiansyah. 2010. Analisis potensi perdagangan karbon kehutanan sebagai inovasi investasi dalam rangka mengatasi krisis keuangan global. Dalam Kolopaking, L.M (editor). Manajemen Krisis: Protokol Penyelamatan dan Pemulihan di Sektor Pangan, Pertanian dan Perdesaan. IPB Press, Bogor. Gibson, C.G, McKean, M.A, Ostrom, E. 2000. People and Forests: Communities. Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press. Cambridge. Hartshon, G.S. 1995. Ecological Basis for Sustainable Development in Tropical Forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 26, pp. 155-175. Manring, N.J. 2005. The Politics of Accountability in National Forest Planning. Administration and Society, Vol. 37/1, pp. 57-88. McCarthy, J.F. 2000. The Changing Regime: Forest Property and Reformasi in Indonesia. Development and Change, Vol. 31, pp. 91-129. Miller, C. 2001. Hybrid Management: Boundary Organization, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance in the Climate Regime. Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol.26/4, pp. 478-500. Takahashi, S. 2008. Challenges for Local Communities and Livelihood to Seek Sustainable Forest Management in Indonesia. The Journal of Environment and Development, Vol. 17/2, pp. 192-211. Annonymous, 2012. WWF Discussion Paper (May 19, 2012). A Roadmap For REDD+ Forest Reference Emission Level (REL) And/or Forest Reference Level (RL): Why Parties Should Support A Robust Technical Assesssment of RLs. Unpublished Purnomo, A. dan Sukadri, D. 20122. REDD+ dan LULUCF, dalam: Green Review on REDD+ . Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim. Jakarta, Indonesia. Butler, R.A. 2009. Brazil Plan to Save the Amazon rainforest in “Rainforest”. Mongabay.com. CAN International, 2011. LULUCF in UNFCCC Negotiation. Climate Focus, 2011. Struktur Negosiasi UNFCCC.